Kleinjans, K is in J.
A icle
Socio-economic ci cums ances a bi h and ea ly
mo he hood: The case o he "Daugh e s o he Wall"
Jou nal o Economics and S a is ics
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
De G uy e B ill
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Kleinjans, K is in J. (2024) : Socio-economic ci cums ances a bi h and ea ly
mo he hood: The case o he "Daugh e s o he Wall", Jou nal o Economics and S a is ics, ISSN
2366-049X, De G uy e Oldenbou g, Be lin, Vol. 244, Iss. 1/2, pp. 113-129,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/jbns -2022-0017
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/333276
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
K is in J. Kleinjans*
Socio-economic Ci cums ances a Bi h and
Ea ly Mo he hood: The Case o he
“Daugh e s o he Wall”
h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/jbns -2022-0017
Recei ed Ma ch 14, 2022; accep ed Ap il 12, 2023
Abs ac : The all o he Be lin Wall in No embe 1989 esul ed in a se e e eco-
nomic down u n and a s a k empo a y decline in e ili y in Eas Ge many. Bu did
i also affec he e ili y o u u e gene a ions? In his pape , I in es iga e ea ly
mo he hood –a ma ke o li e ime disad an age –o hose bo n in he yea s
immedia ely a e he all o he Be lin Wall. Using da a om he Ge man Socio-
economic Panel and a diffe ence-in-diffe ences specifica ion compa ing he
“Daugh e s o he Wall”wi h Eas Ge mans bo n in adjacen yea s and wi h Wes
Ge mans in o de o con ol o egion fixed-effec s and ime- a ying con ounde s,
Ifind ha heseDaugh e so heWallwe emo elikely oha echild eninyoung
adul hood i hey did no g ow up wi h bo h o hei pa en s. These esul s sugges
ha se e e ecessions inc ease ea ly mo he hood o hose bo n in o disad an age,
inc easing he ansmission o disad an age ac oss gene a ions.
Keywo ds: gende inequali y, e ili y, pa en al selec ion, ecession, economic
uphea al, all o he Be lin Wall, Ge man socioeconomic panel
JEL Classifica ion: D91, J13, P30
1 In oduc ion
In his pape , I in es iga e whe he being bo n o nega i ely selec ed pa en s du ing a
ime o economic and social uphea al inc eases ea ly mo he hood. I use he all o he
Be lin Wall in No embe 1989 and he subsequen sha p educ ion in e ili y a es in
A icle No e: This a icle is pa o he special issue “Gende Economics”published in he Jou nal o
Economics and S a is ics. Access o u he a icles o his special issue can be ob ained a h ps://www.
deg uy e .com/jou nals/jbns .
*Co esponding au ho : K is in J. Kleinjans, Depa men o Economics, Cali o nia S a e Uni e si y,
Fulle on, USA, E-mail: [email p o ec ed]
Jou nal o Economics and S a is ics 2024; 244(1–2): 113–129
Open Access. © 2023 he au ho (s), published by De G uy e . This wo k is licensed unde he
C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License.
Eas Ge many
1
as he exogenous a ia ion ha allows me o iden i y his effec using a
diffe ence-in-diffe ences amewo k. Since ea ly mo he hood isassocia ed wi h wo se
economic ou comes, unde s anding he linkage be ween mo he hood and economic
shocks helps us o be e unde s and how disad an age and gende inequali y is
pe pe ua ed h ough e ili y choices o women and whe he he a e o hese ans-
missions is diffe en o hose bo n du ing difficul economic imes.
Ea ly mo he hood nega i ely affec s economic ou comes h oughou women’s
li es. Ha ing child en in young adul hood is associa ed wi h lowe educa ional
a ainmen , lowe income, and a g ea e po e y isk (Hübgen 2020; Raab 2017).
Young mo he s a e also mo e likely o be single mo he s o o li e in uns able
ela ionships, bo h o which a e p edic o s o po e y, including in Eas and Wes
Ge many (Fede al Minis y o Family Affai s 2018; Hübgen 2020; Raab 2017; Zagel
e al. 2021; see also Bundesminis e ium ü Familie, Senio en, F auen, und Jugend
2012). Pe haps no su p isingly, single mo he s a e also mo e s essed and unhappy
(Hame mesh 2021). Ea ly mo he hood is ansmi ed h ough gene a ions.
Daugh e s o young mo he s a e mo e likely o hemsel es become mo he s a a
young age and in less s able amily en i onmen s (Ama o and Pa e son 2017;
Blomeye e al. 2013; Mo osow and T appe 2018; Raab 2017). The e is an ex ensi e
li e a u e in sociology documen ing he con ibu ion o economic ha dship,
educa ional a ainmen , and alues passed on o he nex gene a ion, as well as he
s esso s ha a e p esen in uns able amilies linking mo he s’and daugh e s’
e ili y choices (see, e.g. Raab 2017). Young mo he s a e hus mo e likely o be
disad an aged.
Disad an aged amilies a e especially affec ed by se e e ecessions. Pa en s
who we e unemployed du ing he g ea ecession, o example, suffe ed no only
om educed incomes and inc eased s ess bu also om wo se heal h ou comes.
These nega i e effec s we e wo se o single, low-income mo he s, and accen ua ed
exis ing gende diffe ences in po e y a es (Cu ie e al. 2015; Cu ie and Duque
2016). Thei child en a e affec ed no only because hey ha e ewe esou ces
a ailable o hem in childhood, bu also because hey ha e wo se ela ionships wi h
hei pa en s (Mincy and De la C uz Toledo 2016; Schneide e al. 2016a, 2016b).
Wo se ela ionships wi h pa en s, in u n, p edic ea ly mo ing ou o he amily
home and ea ly mo he hood (Hoffe h and Goldscheide 2010). I is hus possible
ha se e e ecessions affec he nex gene a ion by inc easing hei p obabili y o
ha ing child en in ea ly adul hood, and especially hose who a e al eady a isk.
While ecen s udies ha e analyzed he effec s o he g ea ecession on amilies
(see, e.g. Cu ie e al. 2015; Ga finkel e al. 2016), i is s ill oo ea ly o know whe he
1Fo simplici y, I will e e h oughou his a icle o he egion o he o me Ge man Democ a ic
Republic as Eas Ge many and ha o he Fede al Republic o Ge many in 1989 as Wes Ge many.
114 K. J. Kleinjans
he e ili y iming o hose who we e bo n du ing ha ime was affec ed. The effec s
o he G ea Dep ession on child en ha e been s udied ex ensi ely (see, e.g. Duque
and Schmi z 2021; Thomasson and Fishback 2014), bu he ma e ial dep i a ion
du ing ha ime led o unique ha dship among he poo and hose who ell in o
po e y du ing he dep ession (e.g. Te kel 1970), so he findings a e no in o ma i e
abou he effec s o se e e, mo e ecen ecessions. The all o he Be lin Wall in 1989
and he subsequen eunifica ion wi h Wes Ge many is he e o e a unique oppo -
uni y o s udy he e ili y choices o hose who we e bo n a ound his ime.
My s udy has wo main con ibu ions. Fi s , his is he fi s s udy o analyze he
e ili y choices o hose bo n du ing se e e ecessions. P e ious esea ch has
ocused on mo e sho - e m effec s o ecessions on mo he s and hei child en,
such as mo he s’heal h and heal h beha io s (e.g. Cu ie and Duque 2016). Second,
i is he fi s s udy o in es iga e ea ly mo he hood o he women bo n in Eas
Ge many in he pe iod immedia ely a e he all o he Be lin Wall. I call hese
women he “Daugh e s o he Wall”, ollowing Che alie and Ma ie (2017) who
e e ed o his gene a ion as he “Child en o he Wall”. Since ea ly mo he hood is
associa ed wi h socioeconomic disad an age, i is an impo an p edic o o u u e
disad an age o mo he s and hei child en. This is especially pe inen o he
Daugh e s o he Wall. This coho was bo n du ing a ime when e ili y had
d opped sha ply in Eas Ge many and o mo he s who we e nega i ely selec ed
(Che alie and Ma ie 2017). They ha e been shown o ha e wo se cogni i e and
non-cogni i e skills as well as diffe en isk a i udes (Che alie and Ma ie 2017,
2022; Gill and Kleinjans 2020; Kleinjans and Gill 2018).
To s udy he effec o he all o he Be lin Wall on ea ly mo he hood o hose
bo n in i s immedia e a e ma h, I use a sample o women aged 17–24 who we e
bo n be ween 1983 and 2000 om he Ge man Socioeconomic Panel (SOEP).
Employing a diffe ence-in-diffe ences specifica ion ha compa es he ou comes o
hosebo nin heyea sadjacen o he allo heBe linWallinEas Ge manywi h
hose bo n in Wes Ge many, I find ha hose women who we e bo n igh a e he
all o he Be lin Wall du ing he ime o he sha p d op in e ili y had a g ea e
likelihood o becoming young mo he s. This effec is only p esen , howe e , o
hose who did no g ow up wi h bo h pa en s. Child en who g ow up wi h single o
cohabi a ing, non-ma ied pa en s ace g ea e ea ly li e ad e si y and lowe socio-
emo i e home en i onmen s, and a e wo se in a ange o social and economic
ou comes, which a e in u n associa ed wi h ea lie childbea ing and g ea e
likelihood o becoming single mo he s (see, e.g., Blomeye e al. 2013; Bundesmi-
nis e ium ü Familie, Senio en, F auen, und Jugend 2012; Che alie and Ma ie
2017; Fo an e al. 2022; Manning 2015). My findings sugges , hus, ha i is hose who
a e al eady disad an aged whose beha io is affec ed in a way ha is likely o
esul in g ea e po e y and socioeconomic disad an age in hei li es, wo sening
hei disad an age. Female po e y, he e o e, is no only ansmi ed h ough
Daugh e s o he Wall 115
gene a ions by mo he hood a young ages bu he a e o ansmission inc eases in
he a e ma h o economic shocks h ough hei effec s on he nex gene a ion o
women –lowe ing women’s incomes, wo sening hei po e y, and inc easing he
gende gaps in economic ou comes.
2 The Daugh e s o he Wall
The all o he Be lin Wall in No embe 1989 esul ed in he wo s economic
con ac ion since Wo ld Wa II (Ake lo e al. 1991; BA 2019; Collie 1991) and a s a k
d op in e ili y in Eas Ge many. As can be seen in Figu e 1, he o al e ili y a e in
Eas Ge many d opped by 36 % alone be ween 1990 and 1991, a d op ha con inued
un il 1993 (hence o h e e ed o as e ili y ough). Those who did ha e child en
du ing his ime o low e ili y we e mo e nega i ely affec ed by labo demand
shocks because o g ea e exposu e o he economic es uc u ing ha ook place
a e No embe 1989 (Liepmann 2018). This aligns wi h findings by Che alie and
Ma ie (2017). They ha e shown ha he “Child en o he Wall”–who we e bo n
immedia ely a e he all o he Be lin Wall up un il he fla ening o he e ili y
decline in 1993 –g ew up in less a o able amily en i onmen s han hose who
we e bo n jus be o e: They had mo he s who we e younge , less educa ed, and
mo e likely o be on wel a e, and g ew up in less s able amilies wi h pa en s who
we e less engaged in he li es o hei child en. Che alie and Ma ie (2017) also
ound ha hese child en had lowe es sco es and educa ional achie emen as
eenage s. This was no he case o hose who we e bo n o mo he s al eady
p egnan in No embe 1989, poin ing o he impo ance o pa en al selec ion o
hese findings a he han i jus being he consequence o he social and economic
uphea al (Che alie and Ma ie 2017). Follow-up wo k by Gill and Kleinjans (2020)
and Kleinjans and Gill (2018, 2022) ound ha he Daugh e s o he Wall also ha e
lowe non-cogni i e skills in young adul hood and ha he young men bo n du ing
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Eas Wes
Figu e 1: To al e ili y a es in Ge many, by egion. Fo women aged 15–49 yea s. Be lin is excluded
om 2001 onwa ds. Da a sou ce: S a is isches Bundesam (2020), a ailable a h ps://www.des a is.de/
DE/P esse/P essemi eilungen/2020/07/PD20_282_122.h ml.
116 K. J. Kleinjans
his ime exhibi iskie heal h beha io s. Che alie and Ma ie (2022) u he link
mo he s’and child en’s iskie a i udes o child en’s highe p opensi y o commi
c imes.
I is he e ili y beha io in young adul hood o hese women ha I in es iga e
in his s udy. Bo n du ing a ime o low e ili y in Eas Ge many, in young adul -
hood hey li ed in a Ge many in which Eas and Wes e ili y a es had con e ged,
as can be seen in Figu e 1. Focusing on his g oup, his iden ifica ion s a egy allows
me o causally iden i y how being bo n du ing economic and social uphea al o
nega i ely selec ed pa en s affec ed hei e ili y in young adul hood.
3 Empi ical App oach
To iden i y he causal effec s o being bo n in Eas Ge many in he yea s immedi-
a ely a e he all o he Be lin Wall on ea ly mo he hood, I use a diffe ence-in-
diffe ences model es ima ed on a sample o 17- o 24-yea -old women. Following
Che alie and Ma ie (2017), I define he ea ed g oup, he Daugh e s o he Wall, as
hose bo n in Eas Ge many be ween Augus 1990 and he end o 1993. Thei
mo he s became p egnan a e he all o he Be lin Wall du ing he e ili y ough
and we e nega i ely selec ed. The fi s con ol g oup is hose bo n in Eas Ge many
be o e Augus 1990 o a e 1993. This fi s diffe ence allows me o iden i y whe he
his ea ed g oup’s e ili y iming diffe s om o he Eas Ge man coho s. The
second con ol g oup a e Wes Ge mans, who we e nei he affec ed by he
uphea al no expe ienced changes in pa en al selec ion ollowing he all o he
Be lin Wall. Using his second diffe ence allows me o con ol o ime- a ying
con ounde s ha may ha e affec ed he e ili y o diffe en bi h coho s. Figu e 2
isualizes he con ol and ea men g oups along he yea -o -bi h axis. I es ima e
he ollowing equa ion:
childi c =∅ +√c+xi c +∝D c +ui c,(1)
whe e iis he indi idual, is he egion (Eas o Wes ), and cis he coho ( ha is, he
yea o bi h). The ou come a iable, child, is equal o one i he indi idual has a leas
one child. D c is he ea men , which is equal o one i he indi idual was bo n in he
Eas and be ween Augus 1990 and 1993. xa e he co a ia es (age dummies and
su ey yea dummies), ∅ a e egional fixed effec s, √ccoho fixed effec s, and ui c is
he e o e m.
The coho is equal o he yea o bi h, wi h wo excep ions because o he iming
o he all o he Be lin Wall in No embe 1989 as well as he iming o p egnancy and
bi h. Che alie and Ma ie (2017) ha e demons a ed ha mo he s who we e al eady
p egnan when he Be lin Wall ell we e no nega i ely selec ed, and ha he sha p
Daugh e s o he Wall 117
d op in e ili y happened a e hese women ga e bi h. This coho , which I call
C ossing ollowing Gill and Kleinjans (2020), is hus dis inc om hose bo n be o e
he all o he Be lin Wall and om hose bo n o nega i ely selec ed mo he s who
became p egnan a e wa ds. To ake his in o accoun , I code hem as a sepa a e
coho . Since his lea es a small coho size o he Daugh e s o he Wall bo n in
1990, I combine hese wi h hose bo n in 1991 in o a coho 1990/1991.
The model hus es ima es he a e age ea men effec o he ea ed (ATET) by
fi ing a linea model wi h yea -o -bi h and egional fixed effec s o con ol o
ime- a ying con ounde s and ime-in a ian g oup cha ac e is ics. This iden ifi-
ca ion me hod equi es he assump ion ha he espec i e Eas and Wes Ge man
womenin he1983–2000 bi h coho s would ha e exhibi ed simila ends in
amily o ma ion o e ime had he all o he Be lin Wall and he dec ease in
e ili y in he subsequen h ee yea s no occu ed. This assump ion is plausible
gi en he e ili y ends in Eas and Wes Ge many and he bi h coho s included
inmysample.S a ingin heea ly2000s,when heea lies coho o womeninmy
sample ( hose bo n in 1983) s a ed o ha e child en o e all e ili y a es we e e y
simila (see Figu e 1). I epo o mal es s o he pa allel end assump ion and
g aphical e idence in he nex sec ion. Also no e ha I chose a na ow window o
yea -o -bi h coho s o abou se en yea s be o e he all o he Wall up un il abou
se en yea s a e he e ili y ough o my wo king sample o make he included
coho s as simila as possible while main aining sufficien sample sizes o in e -
ence. My esul s a e no d i en by he exac choice and defini ion o coho s (see
subsec ion Robus ness Checks.).
To adjus o he small numbe o g oups and he ela i ely la ge numbe o
indi iduals in each g oup, I use he agg ega ion me hod p oposed by Donald and
Lang (2007) o calcula e he coefficien o in e es ( he a e age ea men effec o
he ea ed) and he s anda d e o s. Using wild boo s apping ins ead o compu e
p- alues and confidence in e als leads o simila coefficien s and mos ly sligh ly
lowe p- alues; I hus epo he mo e conse a i e esul s.
To a oid bad con ols, ha is, a iables ha a e hemsel es affec ed by he
ea men (Ang is and Pischke 2009) I only con ol o age and su ey yea . Age
dummies a e included o accoun o diffe ences in e ili y a e by age, and su ey
yea dummies o con ol o e en s ha may ha e affec ed e ili y in any gi en
Eas and Wes
1982 - July 1990
CONTROL
Eas
Augus 1990 -
Decembe 1993
TREATED
Wes
Augus 1990 -
Decembe 1993
CONTROL
Eas and Wes
1994 - 2000
CONTROL
Figu e 2: Assignmen o ea ed and con ol g oups by egion and yea o bi h.
118 K. J. Kleinjans
yea (such as a ecession). I es ima e his model o he whole sample. To e alua e
po en ial mechanisms o diffe ences in ea ly e ili y o he Daugh e s o he Wall
also es ima e he model wi h he sample spli by pa ne ship s a us and by whe he
indi iduals g ew up wi h bo h o hei pa en s.
My iden ifica ion s a egy elies on he compa ison o diffe ences in ea ly
mo he hood wi hin and ac oss egions. While he all o he Be lin Wall was unex-
pec ed, i did affec all Eas Ge mans. The e o e, my esul s do no show how he
social and economic uphea al ollowing he all o he Be lin Wall affec ed ea ly
mo he hood o hose who we e child en du ing ha ime o bo n in he yea s
a e wa ds. Wha hey do show is whe he ea ly mo he hood o hose who we e bo n
in he immedia e a e ma h, o nega i ely selec ed pa en s, was diffe en .
To in es iga e po en ial pa e ns and mechanisms, I es ima e he same model
on wo diffe en se s o subsamples. Fi s , I spli he sample by pa ne s a us o
in es iga e whe he diffe ences in ea ly mo he hood a e associa ed wi h single
mo he hood. Second, I spli he sample by whe he a woman g ew up wi h bo h
pa en s du ing he fi s 15 yea s o he li e. Unde he assump ions ha no g owing
up wi h bo h pa en s is a good measu e o disad an age and ha selec ion in o
ela ionship s a us did no diffe o he pa en s o he Daugh e s o he Wall, he
esul s om hese models show he effec o being bo n du ing a se e e ecession
o hose bo n in o disad an age and o hose who we e no .
4 Da a and Va iables
Fo his s udy, I use da a om e sion 36 o he Ge man Socioeconomic Panel (SOEP),
a na ionally ep esen a i e annual su ey o a ound 11,000 households in Ge many,
collec ed be ween 1984 and 2019 (Wagne e al. 2007; see also Goebel e al. 2019).
2
To
s udy p e alence o ea ly mo he hood, I use he subsample o Ge man-bo n women
who a e be ween 17 and 24 yea s old and we e bo n be ween 1983 and 2000, ha is,
be ween oughly se en yea s be o e he all o he Be lin Wall and se en yea s a e
he ough in e ili y. I es ic he sample o women who li e in p i a e house-
holds who we e no ab oad and whose mo he s we e no ab oad in 1989. I d op 16
obse a ions o indi iduals o whom I canno assign a coho and 796 obse a ions
o which I could no assign he egion o bi h.
3
Because I do no obse e e e y
woman un il she eaches age 24, I pool he obse a ions. The final wo king sample
con ains 18,063 obse a ions om 4605 women o he yea s 2000–2019.
2I use he 95 % sample ha is a ailable o in e na ional esea che s.
3Using he cu en egion o hese 796 missing obse a ions as egion o bi h ins ead o d opping
hem do no affec he esul s.
Daugh e s o he Wall 119
Indi iduals a e classified as being om he Eas o om he Wes egion o
Ge many based on hei mo he ’s loca ion in 1989. I his in o ma ion is missing ( he
case in 13 % o he sample), I used he egion o bi h i a ailable o he cu en egion
i he esponden epo ed o be li ing in he same loca ion whe e she g ew up.
As desc ibed in he p e ious sec ion, I di ide indi iduals in o he ea ed and
con ol g oups based on hei loca ion and yea and mon h o bi h. The ea ed
coho s a e hose bo n in he Eas be ween Augus 1990 and he end o 1993, and he
con ol g oups a e hose bo n be o e o a e wa ds in he Eas as well as all bi h
coho s in he Wes .
The ou come a iable o in e es is whe he he woman has any child. (Only 6 %
o women in he sample has mo e han one child.) Co a ia es used include age,
whe he he esponden li es wi h a pa ne (se o ze o o 8 obse a ions wi h
missing in o ma ion), and whe he he esponden li ed wi h bo h biological pa en s
du ing he fi s 15 yea s o he li e. Since only 2.1 % o he wo king sample o hese
young adul s a e ma ied and less han 0.25 % we e ma ied p e iously, I am no able
o explo e diffe ences in ma iage beha io .
Table 1 p o ides desc ip i e s a is ics o he sample. Sligh ly mo e han one
ou h o obse a ions a e om women bo n in Eas Ge many. Responden s a e on
a e age 20 yea s old, and a majo i y g ew up wi h bo h pa en s. The e a e, how-
e e , egional diffe ences: While 70 % o women bo n in he Wes g ew up wi h
bo h pa en s, only 64 % o hose bo n in he Eas did. Eas Ge mans a e mo e likely
o ha e child en (9 % s. 5 %) and o li e wi h a pa ne (15 % s. 11 %). Table 1 also
Table :Desc ip i e s a is ics.
All Eas Eas
Daugh e s o he Wall
only
Wes
Eas
Wes
. %
. %
Any child . %. %. %. %
Age .
(.)
.
(.)
. (.).
(.)
Li ing wi h pa ne . %. %. %. %
G ew up wi h bo h pa en s du ing he fi s
yea s o li e
Yes . %. %. %. %
No . %. %. %. %
No known . %. %. %. %
N, , ,
S anda d de ia ions shown in pa en heses o con inuous a iables.
120 K. J. Kleinjans
inc eased he effec o upb inging on ea ly e ili y h ough inc eased amily
ins abili y in childhood and a mo e s ess ul home en i onmen (Ama o 2005;
Fomby and Che lin 2007).
These esul s shed ligh on how disad an age ansmi s h ough gene a ions and
is amplified by economic shocks. Since young mo he s ha e lowe educa ion and
wages, he inc eased ea ly e ili y o he Daugh e s o he Wall is likely o pe pe ua e
and e en inc ease gende inequali ies in his coho o Ge mans.
Acknowledgemen s: Thank you o he gues edi o s, wo anonymous e e ees,
Ozkan E en, pa icipan s a he UC Ri e side Applied Economics Semina Se ies, and
And ew Gill o help ul commen s and discussions.
Appendix
Table A:Coho Res ic ions: Only hose who did no g ow up wi h bo h pa en s.
()
All
()
Coho s bo n be o e
only
()
Coho s bo n a e
C ossing only
ATET .*** (.).** (.).*** (.)
Age dummies √√ √
Su ey yea dummies √√ √
Region FE √√ √
Yea FE √√ √
Pa allel- ends es (P ob > F) . . N/A
Numbe o obse a ions , , ,
ATET (a e age ea men effec o he ea ed) and s anda d e o s a e calcula ed using he Donald and Lang ()
agg ega ion me hod. *p- alue < ., **p- alue < ., ***p- alue < ..
Re e ences
Ake lo , G.A., Rose, A.K., Yellen, J.L., Hessenius, H., Do nbusch, R., and Gui ian, M. (1991). Eas Ge many in
om he cold: he economic a e ma h o cu ency union. B ookings Pap. Econ. Ac i . 1: 1–105.
Ama o, P.R. (2005). The impac o amily o ma ion change on he cogni i e, social, and emo ional well-
being o he nex gene a ion. Fu u e Child. 15: 75–96.
Ama o, P.A. and Pa e son, S. (2017). The in e gene a ional ansmission o union ins abili y in ea ly
adul hood. J. Ma iage Fam. 79: 723–738.
Ang is , J.D. and Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mos ly ha mless econome ics: an empi icis ’s companion. P ince on
Uni e si y P ess, P ince on and Ox o d.
Daugh e s o he Wall 127
BA (Bundesagen u ü A bei ) (2019). A bei slosigkei im Zei e lau . A bei sma k in Zahlen, Nü nbe g,
Ge many.
Blomeye , D., Lauch , M., Coneus, K., and Pfiffe , F. (2013). Ea ly li e ad e si y and child en’s compe ence
de elopmen : e idence om he Mannheim S udy o child en a isk. Jah b. Na l. S a . 233: 467–485.
Bundesminis e ium ü Familie, Senio en, F auen, und Jugend (2012). Alleine ziehende in Deu schland –
Lebenssi ua ion und Lebenswi klichkei en on Mü e n und Kinde n. Moni o Familien o schung,
Bei äge aus Fo schung, S a is ik, und Familienpoli ik Ausgabe 28. July.
Che alie , A. and Ma ie, O. (2017). Economic unce ain y, pa en al selec ion, and child en’s educa ional
ou comes. J. Poli . Econ. 125: 393–430.
Che alie , A. and Ma ie, O. (2022). Risky moms, isky kids? Fe ili y and c ime a e he all o he Wall.
CESi o Wo king Pape No. 9683.
Collie , I. (1991). On he fi s yea o Ge man mone a y, economic, and social union. J. Econ. Pe spec . 5:
179–186.
Cu ie, J. and Duque, V. (2016). Mo he s’and a he s’heal h. In: Ga finkel, I., McLanahan, S., and Wime , C.
(Eds.). Child en o he g ea ecession. Russell Sage Founda ion, New Yo k, pp. 88–117.
Cu ie, J., Duque, V., and Ga finkel, I. (2015). The g ea ecession and mo he s’heal h. Econ. J. 125:
F311–F346.
Donald, G.D. and Lang, K. (2007). In e ence wi h diffe ence-in-diffe ences and o he panel da a. Re . Econ.
S a . 89: 221–233.
Duque, V. and Schmi z, L.L. (2021). The influence o ea ly-li e economic shocks on aging ou comes:
e idence om he U. S. g ea dep ession. Cen e o Re i emen Resea ch a Bos on College, CRR WP
2021-24. Decembe , A ailable a : h ps://c .bc.edu/wo king-pape s/ he-influence-o -ea ly-li e-
economic-shocks-on-aging-ou comes-e idence- om- he-u-s-g ea -dep ession/.
Fede al Minis y o Family Affai s, Senio Ci izens, Women and You h (2018). Family epo 2017: benefi s,
effec s, ends, A ailable a : www.bm s j.de.
Fomby, P. and Che lin, A.J. (2007). Family ins abili y and child well-being. Am. Socio. Re . 72: 181–204.
Fo an, H.M., Muelle , J., Schulz, W., and Hahlweg, K. (2022). Cohabi a ion, ela ionship s abili y,
ela ionship adjus men , and child en’s men al heal h o e 10 yea s. F on . Psychol. 12: 746306.
Ga finkel, I., McLanahan, S., and Wime , C. (Eds.) (2016). Child en o he g ea ecession. Russell Sage
Founda ion, New Yo k.
Gill, A. and Kleinjans, K.J. (2020). The effec o he all o he Be lin Wall on child en’s noncogni i e skills.
Appl. Econ. 52: 5595–5612.
Goebel, J., G abka, M.M., Liebig, S., K oh, M., Rich e , D., Sch öde , C., and Schupp, J. (2019). The Ge man
socio-economic panel (SOEP). J. Econ. S a . 239: 345–360.
Hame mesh, D. (2021). Mom’s ime –ma ied o no . NBER Wo king Pape 28317.
Hoffe h, S.L. and Goldscheide , F. (2010). Family s uc u e and he ansi ion o ea ly pa en hood.
Demog aphy 47: 415–437.
Hübgen, S. (2020). Unde s anding lone mo he s’high po e y in Ge many: disen angling composi ion
effec s and effec s o lone mo he hood. Ad . Li e Cou se Res. 44: 100327.
Kleinjans, K.J. and Gill, A. (2022). In e gene a ional ansmission o disad an age: nega i e pa en al
selec ion, economic uphea al, and smoking. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 43: 799–814.
Kleinjans, K.J. and Gill, A. (2018). Ins i u ions, pa en al selec ion, and locus o con ol. Appl. Econ. Le . 25:
1041–1044.
Liepmann, H. (2018). The impac o a nega i e labo demand shock on e ili y –e idence om he all o
he Be lin Wall. Lab. Econ. 54: 210–224.
Manning, W.D. (2015). Cohabi a ion and child en wellbeing. Fu u e Child. 25: 51–66.
128 K. J. Kleinjans
Mincy, R.B. and De la C uz Toledo, E. (2016). Non esiden a he in ol emen . In: Ga finkel, I.,
McLanahan, S., and Wime , C. (Eds.). Child en o he g ea ecession. Russell Sage Founda ion,
New Yo k, pp. 149–172.
Mo osow, K. and T appe, H. (2018). In e gene a ional ansmission o e ili y iming in Ge many. Demog .
Res. 38: 1389–1422.
Raab, M. (2017). Childhood amily s uc u e and ea ly amily o ma ion in Eas and Wes Ge many.
J. Ma iage Fam. 79: 110–130.
Schneide , W., McLanahan, S., and Ha kne , K. (2016a). Pa en s’ ela ionships. In: Ga finkel, I.,
McLanahan, S., and Wime , C. (Eds.), Child en o he g ea ecession. Russell Sage Founda ion,
New Yo k, pp. 118–148.
Schneide , W., Wald ogel, J., and B ooks-Gunn, J. (2016b). Child wellbeing. In: Ga finkel, I., McLanahan, S.,
and Wime , C. (Eds.), Child en o he g ea ecession. Russell Sage Founda ion, New Yo k, pp. 206–228.
S a is isches Bundesam (2013). Gebu en ends und Familiensi ua ion in Deu schland. No embe ,
A ailable a : h ps://www.des a is.de/DE/Themen/Gesellscha -Umwel /Be oelke ung/Haushal e-
Familien/Publika ionen/Downloads-Haushal e/gebu en ends-5122203129004.h ml (Accessed 3
Decembe 2022).
Te kel, S. (1970). Ha d imes. New Yo k: Pan heon Books.
Thomasson, M.A. and Fishback, P.V. (2014). Ha d imes in he land o plen y: he effec on income and
disabili y la e in li e o people bo n du ing he g ea dep ession. Explo . Econ. His . 54: 64–78.
Wagne , G.G., F ick, J.R., and Schupp, J. (2007). The Ge man socioeconomic panel s udy (SOEP) –scope,
e olu ion, and enhancemen s. Schmolle s Jah b. 127: 139–169.
Zagel, H., Hübgen, S., and Nieuwenhuis, R. (2021). Di e ging ends in single-mo he po e y ac oss
Ge many, Sweden, and he Uni ed Kingdom: owa ds a comp ehensi e explana o y amewo k. Soc.
Fo ces 101: 606–638, soab142.
Daugh e s o he Wall 129
